The main legal point established is that the Government can purchase land for a nominal amount under S.36A (2) only if there is arrear of public revenue due on the particular land purchased, and a property mortgaged to the Government for a loan under the 1952 Act cannot be treated as arrear of public revenue unless the kist is in arrear.

1. This is an appeal against a judgment given by Govindan Nair, J. whereby he vacated a sale conducted under the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act (VII of 1951), hereinafter called the 1951 Act, and thus allowed O. P. 839 of 1965 which was filed for that relief and the two questions arising for decision in the appeal are whether purchase of an item of land by Government for a nominal amount under S.36A (2) of the 1951 Act is permitted only when there is arrear of public revenue due on it and whether a land can be treated as one in respect of which there is arrear of public revenue if it is mortgaged to the State for taking a loan under the Travancore-Cochin State Aid to Industries Act, (XIX of 1952) hereinafter called the 1952 Act, and the person aided has defaulted to pay back the loan as contracted.

2. The relevant facts can be set out in a short compass. 25 cents of land belonging to the Respondent, who was the Petitioner in O. P. 839 of 1965 was mortgaged by him along with other properties to the State and he took from the State a loan of Rs. 32,000 under the 1952 Act for storing tannery works. The agreement was to pay back the amount borrowed in 40 half-yearly instalments. When some of the instalments were defaulted the land referred to above was put up for sale in public auction under the 1951 Act. In the notice regarding sale it was mentioned that the amount due to the State was Rs. 22,573-25 and interest. In the sab conducted on 25-2-1965 the Tahsildar, Changanacherry. purchased the property on behalf of the Government for 5 paise. It was then that the respondent filed O. P. 839 of 1955 for vacating the sale.

3. The rival contentions are these: The Advocate General appearing for the appellants, the State and its officers, the Collector, Kottayam, and the Tahsildar, Changanacherry, relies upon S.30 of the 1952 Act which authorises loans payable under that Act being recovered as if they were arrears of public or land revenue and submits that in the present case Government acted within its powers when it purchased the property under S.36A of the 1951 Act for a nominal amount. He contends that S.36A of the 1951 Act empowers purchase of one item of property for a nominal amount even if the arrear of public revenue for which the sale is conducted is for a different item. According to him even if that Section is not capable of that interpretation as the concerned property had been made security for the loan amount in the mortgage deed and the sale was for that amount it had to be taken that the sale was for arrear of public revenue due on that particular property. Counsel appearing for the respondent contends, on the other hand, that purchase for a nominal amount under S.36A of the 1951 Act can be resorted to only if there is arrear of public revenue due on the particular land purchased and that as the sale was not for kist due on that land it could not be deemed as sale for "arrear of public revenue due on land" as defined in S.2 (b) of the 1951 Act. According to him from the mere fact that the concerned land had been mortgaged for the loan and S.30(1) of the 1952 Act provided that loans payable under that Act could be recovered as if they were arrears of public or land revenue it could not be taken that the sale was for arrears of public revenue due on that land.

4. We pause here to observe that S, 36A was inserted in the 1951 Act by the Kerala Revenue Recovery Laws (Amendment) Act, 2 of 1964. The circumstances under which the amendment was made are as follows: In Ramrao v. State of Bombay AIR. 1963 S C. 827 the Supreme Court held a purchase by Government of 3 items of land for a nominal amount of Re. 1/- to be invalid. The sale in that case was under the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The Supreme court said in that case:

"A sale for a predetermined nominal sum cannot, in our opinion, be held to bear "sale by public auction" in the absence of any provision for such sales in the statute."

There was provision for such